First, I would like to thank Armando for having this debate with me. I will be affirming the position that God is absolutely and indivisibly one. Likewise, I will be affirming the position that this one God who is absolutely and indivisibly one is three Persons.

The way I see it, my task is rather simple: using Scriptures, demonstrate that:(a) There is only one God(b) The Father is God(c) The Son is God(d) The Holy Spirit is God(e) The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons

Once I accomplish the above, my job is done.

There’s another thing I would like to point out. Were it to happen that the Negative Side will have an interpretation of a Bible passage different from mine, the matter should be resolved by referring to the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic original, trying to derive the meaning, first, from its use in other parts of Scripture or its meaning and use at the time as shown by reliable lexicons, preferably Strong’s.

With that said, let me lay down precisely what the Catholic teaching is with regard to the Holy Trinity:

By “Holy Trinity” is meant the one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Three Persons, one God. There is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Spirit Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Spirit Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Spirit not Three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is before or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.

In the course of my discussions, I will be referring to the “Logos,” “Persons,” “Roman Catholic Church” or, simply, “the Church.” Likewise, I will be referring to “doctrine,” “dogma” or “Scripture.” Here are their definitions:

“LOGOS” or ‘WORD” The word Logos is the term by which Christian theology in the Greek language designates the Word of God, or Second Person of the Blessed Trinity

“CHURCH” OR ‘ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH” The visible community of all the faithful, founded by Christ, in which are continued the activities developed by Him during His earthly life for the remission of sin and for the salvation of mankind under the direction of His Spirit until the end of the world by means of a continuous uninterrupted Apostolate ordained by Him, and by which, in the course of time, all peoples will be brought back to God. Thus the visible Church is the Son of God in human form constantly appearing, constantly being renewed, eternally being rejuvenated, just as the faithful in Holy Writ are also called the Body of Christ.

The Church is a union of men united who are united by the profession of the same Christian faith, and by participation in the same Sacraments under the direction of their lawful pastors, especially of the one representative of Christ on earth, the Pope of Rome.

“DOCTRINE” Doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals.

“DOGMA” Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed.

The Church’s magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. (CCC 88)

“BIBLE” By “Bible” is meant the Revised Standard Version.

“SCRIPTURE” Sacred Scripture is one of the several names denoting the inspired writings which make up the Old and New Testament

“THE POPE” The bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, chief of the whole Church, and the Vicar of Christ on earth.Now,for the Bible proof.

The word “Trinity” is not found in Scripture. It was first used by Tertullian (born around A.D. 160). That doesn’t mean, however, that it wasn’t taught before. Consider, for instance, the Didache.

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

And much less does it mean that the Holy Trinity is not taught in Scripture.

The Trinity formula is the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. So it’s Three Persons in one God. Note that the Father and Jesus are both God but Two different Persons.

Scripture gives abundant proof that the Father and the Son are Two different Persons. One God, yes, but two different Persons. Bible couldn’t be clearer::

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)

Scripture couldn’t be clearer: the Word was WITH God and IS God. We see, therefore, that the Word is a Person, and a distinct Person.

Let’s go over that again: "The word was with God". The preposition "with" expresses that the Word was side by side with God (therefore not in God) and co-ordinated to God (cf. Mk. 9:19). The Word is a different Person from God the Father. This follows from the fact that the Logos was with God, and notably from the identification of the Word with the Only-begotten Son of the Father.

We see that God uses "us" and "our" while referring to Himself. If God is one Person, why does He refer to Himself as if He is more than one?

"And the Lord appeared unto him (Abraham) in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant. Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said." - Genesis 18:1-5

We see that THREE men appeared to Abraham and Abraham called them "My Lord."

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." - Matthew 28:19

This is probably one of the best verses for the dogma of the Trinity. We see that it is ONE name, but THREE different Persons. It says, "The Father," "The Son," "The Holy Spirit." These are not titles, but Persons.

"Modalism asserts that there is only one person in the Godhead, it makes nonsense of passages which show Jesus talking to his Father (e.g., John 17), or declaring he is going to be with the Father (John 14:12, 28, 16:10) One office of a person cannot go to be with another office of that person, or say that the two of them will send the Holy Spirit while they remain in heaven (John 14:16-17, 26, 15:26, 16:13–15; Acts 2:32–33)."

Likewise, take a look at Lk 1:35 “And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

Three Persons are identified: the Most High, the Son of the Most High, and the Holy Spirit..

Or consider the Theophany after the baptism of Jesus Mt 3:126 ff: “And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Again, three Persons are identified: the Most High, the Son of the Most High, and the Holy Spirit..The speaker is God the Father. Jesus is the Son of God—the words “beloved Son” in Biblical language usually means “the only Son.” (Gen 22:2-12, 16; Mk 12:6). The Holy Spirit makes his appearance under a special symbol as an independent, personal essence side by side with the Father and the Son.

Or consider The Last Supper (John 14:16): “And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever,

Three Persons are identified: the Most High, the Son of the Most High, and the Holy Spirit..

The Holy Trinity is most clearly made evident in the command given the Apostles by Jesus in Mt 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Three Persons are identified: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit..

Acts 5:3-4 "lie to the Holy Spirit....lied to GOD"; 2 Cor 3:17 "the Lord is the Spirit"

(F) THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT ARE PERSONAL AND DISTINCT.

Matt 3:16-17; 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; John 14:16; 17:5; etc

Therefore, the ONE GOD is THREE PERSONS, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit according to the Bible.

God is ONE. That much is made very clear by Mk 12:291 Cor 8:4; Eph 4:6; and 1 Tim 2:5. But God is three Persons, where “Person” is a hypostasis endowed with reason, and where “hypostasis” is an individual complete substance existing entirely in itself, an incommunicable substance.

Because of this Unity, the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son.

Jesus Christ himself tells us in Jn 10:30: “I and the Father are one." As if to make sure we don’t miss the point, Jesus repeats the same thing in Jn 10:38: “but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

How about the Holy Spirit? The passages cited mention the Father wholly in the Son , and the Son wholly in the Father, but is the Holy Spirit wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son, and vice-versa? The answer is “YES,” as 1 Cor 2:10 ff tells us: “God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. “

This penetration and indwelling of the Three Divine Persons reciprocally in one another is called “Perichoresis.”

With all the Bible passages cited, I am confident that I have established the Biblical support for the concept of the Holy Trinity. The Church has always held this view and has defined it.

NEGATIVE OPENING STATEMENT

Prefatory statement and position of the Negative side:

Some things has to have a beginning, the universe, life, and so with religion, beliefs, doctrines, teachings. The Roman Catholic Church began, with the desire of one man, Constantine the Great, after his victory over Maxentius on the Milvian bridge, from whence, he eventually became the Emperor of the Eastern and Western domain and ruled as the Sumus Princeps Maximus, or the Supreme Roman Emperor, of the crumbling Roman empire. The of his rise into power and influence was not total, for it was marred by moral decline amongst the populace that was brought about by multicultural differences of its people. Traditionally all emperors of the Roman Empire was seen to be and looked after by them as their living God, the Caesars’ of Rome. With the decline of Nero, and Caligula, the populace sought after many other gods, and goddesses to pay homage to. Constantine himself was a pagan, and worship the Sun God, Sol Invictus, even right to his death bed.

He surmised that there was a need to conserve the former unity of the Roman People, and the only way was to form a uniting force behind his military and governing power, and that the answer a new religion! The incursion of the teaching of the man called Jesus of Nazareth, made an inroad into the Empire. They were followers of the man whom they have killed on a cross, deemed a criminal, eventually made him their god.

Constantine and with his close friend Eusebius, and others, decided to hold and official gathering in Nicaea of all presbyters and teachers of all known pagan religion to discus the formation of the new religion, now known as the Council of Nicaea 325 A.D. That was only organized, after Constantine proclaimed the Edict of Milan only a few year earlier in 313 A.D. After so many years of deliberation, and choosing their religion among so many god/ gds/ goddesses, the voted on Jesus Christ the Nazarene to be their new god. Having no basis for the new religion Constantine ordered Eusebius to collect and compile whatever record that the followers of Jesus had in their hands. With the help of Alexander the Patriarch of Alexandria and Origen was able to produce fifty copies of their translations and transliterations into Latin Vulgate Bible, eventually translated into English version after the Reformation Period. It was also in this Council of Nicaea that they concocted the first doctrine of God the Father, and the Son. Eventually, the person of the Holy Spirit was included, after later deliberation the cardinal principle of the Holy Trinity was invented and canonized. The new religion that was officially declared as the official religion of the roman Empire, but Emperor Theodosius I, on February 27, 380 A.D.

Thus, the word “HOLY TRINITY” of a mention of a ‘TRUNE GOD” can not be found IN ANY chapters, passage, verse in either the Old or New testaments. It simply is because the Doctrine was concocted and made by men known today in the Roman Catholic History as Holy Church Fathers, most of which were Romans and former pagans and idolaters of the Roman Empire.

The English word Trinity is derived from Latin Trinitas, meaning "the number three, a triad".This abstract noun is formed from the adjective trinus (three each, threefold, triple), as the word unitas is the abstract noun formed from unus (one).

The corresponding word in Greek is Τριάς, meaning "a set of three" or "the number three".The first recorded use of this Greek word in Christian theology (though not about the Divine Trinity) was byTheophilus of Antioch in about 170. He wrote:

"In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity [Τριάδος], of God, andHis Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man." Tertullian a Latin theologian who wrote in the early 3rd century, is credited with using the words "Trinity","person" and "substance"[ to explain that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "one in essence—not one in Person".

The First Council of Nicaea established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and adopted the Nicene Creed, which described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father".

From the Council of Nicaea, to Theodosius I, all other preaching different religion, other that Roman Catholicism and its canon, were called heretics were killed, and their teachings heresy and documents record simply vanished into thin air!

These exterminations and persecutions extended to the Crusades, the Dark Ages, Holy Tribunal and dreaded Holy Inquisition. In other words…THE CROSS OR THE SWORD!The Bible is a story of a Creator of the Universe and his relationship with humanity. The story begins with the account of God creating the universe and the first human known to all of us as "Adam." The Bible is the account of humanity's relationship to God and how God is redeeming humankind through his Son Jesus Christ and bringing all things into perfection. The most important and significant character of the story of God and humanity is the Supreme Being Creator known most commonly to English speakers as "God." The character "God" is mentioned thousands of times in this story. God is the main character of the Bible.

The confessed God of Trinitarians is a three person God. And the most interesting thing about their God is that this alleged three person being is not once mentioned in the entire story of God and humanity. The three person God is never described anywhere in pages of the Scriptures. This God is ignored,

neglected, forgotten, overlooked, disregarded, unheard-of, unmentioned, unacknowledged, unconfessed, and non-existent on the pages of the Bible. This three person God is nowhere disclosed anywhere on those pages. Yet Trinitarians themselves insist that their doctrine of a three person God is the most central doctrine of the Christian faith.

Is it not just a little bit crazy to claim the main character of the Bible is an identity who is never once mentioned or confessed in the entire Bible where God is the main character and mentioned thousands of times? One can search from the first page to the last and never find one mention of a three person God. Although God is mentioned thousands of times on the pages of the Bible, not once is God identified as a three person being. The Trinitarian three person God is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

Of course, the Trinitarian thinks in his own mind he does have evidence. But where is this evidence of a three person God in the Scriptures? It is nowhere to be found. This three person God concept was created by men. Perhaps this is the reason the Jews had never conceived of a three person God? Although this three person God is not confessed anywhere in the Scriptures, this fact does not seem to bother the Trinitarian. It rarely occurs to him, if ever, that he could be worshiping a God that does not even exist - a false god, an idol. Indeed, most Trinitarians will not even allow themselves to entertain the possibility.

The concept of a three person God for the Trinitarian does not begin on the pages of Scripture since he simply cannot find a three person God reported anywhere therein. Rather, his three person God begins as an idea in his own mind. His God is created and fashioned; it is built as one builds an idol. The Bible is a very large book. One can create almost any concept if he picks and chooses ideas from its pages. So the Trinitarian begins with an idea of his creation in his mind and then travels through the pages of Scripture looking for building materials to make his God. And when he has collected enough building materials to satisfy himself, he creates his own god with his collected materials.

Such a doctrine did not exist until around the end of the fourth century.

The historical facts show the doctrine of the Trinity was a developed concept over two centuries of debating the issue. This reveals quite plainly to thinking people that this teaching was not something handed down by the apostles. This plain fact is devastating to Trinitarian claims. And so, for Trinitarians, these historical facts are quite simply..... denied. An imaginary account of history is much more congenial to their doctrine: Revisionist History.

Trinitarians feel much better pretending to themselves, and to others, that the doctrine of the Trinity was something believed and taught by the apostles and henceforth passed on to the Christians who lived immediately thereafter and so on and so on. Even though they have absolutely no proof that this is the case, and even though the facts indicate otherwise, this is what they want to believe. And that is what they need to believe. Because if that is not the case, their doctrine is found to be a fairy tale developed by wayward men of the fourth century. Unfortunately for them, the facts of history reveal otherwise. And that is something which calls for outright denial of the historical facts on the part of Trinitarians. They simply must deny that their three person God was forgotten by the early church if indeed this teaching has been taught by the Apostles.

Rebuttal: Affirmative Side

I would like to begin my rebuttal by calling attention to the title page of Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code.” The title page says: “The Da Vinci Code: A Novel,” meaning I am making this rebuttal against issues raised IN A NOVEL! For, indeed, “The Da Vinci Code” is where my opponent got the arguments which I’m now giving my rebuttal to.

Likewise, I’d like to point out the contents of the page right after the Acknowledgment in that Dan Brown book. Written there is what Dan Brown insists are “facts,” suggesting that everything else in that novel is FICTION, not much different than if my opponent were arguing the case for Godzilla or KingKong.

Next, I’d like to point out that our topic is very clear: all discussions in this debate should take off from the Bible as the reference point. With not even one Bible passage cited by my opponent, his opening statement becomes an epic fail, and I have nothing to rebut!

Purely for the sake of the truth, therefore, and in order that readers will not be misled, I will address each point raised by my opponent in his non-opening statement.

My opponent made a number of claims.

Claim # 1 The Roman Catholic Church began, with the desire of one man, Constantine the Great.

Fact: The Church was a flourishing community which has managed to spread from Jerusalem to other lands touched by the Mediterranean Sea by the time Constantine was born. Proof of this is the use by Constantine of the Christ’s symbol “chi-rho” on his soldiers’ standards. The claim by my opponent that the Church began with Constantine the Great is simply hilarious.Constantine wrote a letter to his proconsul Aelianus. In that letter, Constantine averred that he would not rest easy until everyone worshipped “the most Holy God.. in the rites of the Catholic religion.”(3) I’d like to ask the readers: Does that sound like Constantine is just starting a new religion?

Claim # 2The Roman Empire was crumbling during the time of Constantine. That is why Constantine had to invent a new religion to unite the empire and check its crumbling.

Fact: The decline of the Roman Empire was one that was gradual and exceedingly slow, occurring over a period of four centuries, and culminating on September 4, 476 when Odoacer sacked Romulus Augustus, the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire. My opponent gives the impression of a panic on the part of Constantine, about he had to hurry, otherwise the empire might crumble under his feet. This is, quite simply, not true.

Claim # 3 “Constantine himself was a pagan, and worship the Sun God, Sol Invictus, even right to his death bed.”

Fact: Here’s Philvaz to debunk this claim:“Constantine the Great converted to Christianity in 312 which is "now almost universally acknowledged"; painted the Christian monogram on his army's shields; opposed the persecution of Christians; practiced forbearance toward Christians, signed an edict of religious tolerance for Christians, and issued mandates restoring rights and property to Christians; published decrees giving religious freedom to all; built several Christian basilicas and churches; restored Christian property; aided the bishops and became involved in all affairs of the Church; supported Christian communities, parishes, kingdoms; held Christian synods and councils; a statue of himself and silver coins were decorated with the Christian monogram; he read the Scriptures and organized Christian religious ceremonies; made Sunday a civil holiday; freed Christian soldiers for religious services; the "Sol Invictus" was adopted in a Christian sense; he spoke of God's providence; claimed divine protection for Christians; an Oration to the Assembly of Saints attributed to Constantine is a model of contemporary Christian apologetics; refused religious honors to the Roman Senate; induced his mother Helena to become a Christian; asked that fifty copies of the Christian scriptures in "magnificent and elaborately bound volumes" be used by the churches in the city.”

Claim # 4“He surmised that there was a need to conserve the former unity of the Roman People, and the only way was to form a uniting force behind his military and governing power, and that the answer a new religion!”

Fact: This is utterly false. In the first place, Christianity was a small, unpopular, and persecuted faith, how could it be “the uniting force behind his military and governing power”? The diverse lands covering vast territories comprising the Roman Empire were pagan of every hue, how could a small religion with the ridiculous doctrine of its God dying a criminal’s death on the Cross be “the uniting force that will bind together as one nation the Empire’s vast territories? That simply doesn’t make any sense!

The truth is, Constantine had nothing to gain by becoming a Christian. Much less will he be able to unite the diverse peoples and cultures under him by using Christianity as the bait.

The reason why he embraced Christianity is really simple: his “vision” and subsequent victory at the battle of Milvian Bridge convinced him that it’s nothing less than a divine intervention

His mother was a Christian, and his father had been sympathetic to Christians, but this is not the reason for his conversion.. It was battle that convinced Constantine- the Christian God delivered him victory at the Milvian Bridge. The new emperor would repay that debt and honor the true God.

The only reason Constantine convened the Council was because Constantine viewed episcopal feuds as a disgrace, self-evidently displeasing to God, and inviting judgment on the empire, AND HE WON’T HAVE THAT! We could almost imagine Constantine wishing resolving the conflict between the Church and Arius were as easy as fighting battles.

Unfortunately they were not. He especially lamented what he called “the rabid and implacable hatreds of the obstinate bishops.”(2) So while he treated the bishops, especially the bishop of Rome with deference, he counted on his own imperial power to break the impasse, and achieve Christian unity. He poured money into the Catholic Church, assured Pope Miltiades that heresy and schism would not be tolerated, and put Caesar’s sword at St. Peter’s service.

In a letter to his proconsul Aelianus, Constantine wrote that he would not rest easy until everyone worshipped “the most Holy God.. in the rites of the Catholic religion.”(3)

Claim # 5“Constantine and with his close friend Eusebius, and others, decided to hold and official gathering in Nicaea of all presbyters and teachers of all known pagan religion to discus the formation of the new religion, now known as the Council of Nicaea 325 A.D. That was only organized, after Constantine proclaimed the Edict of Milan only a few year earlier in 313 A.D. After so many years of deliberation, and choosing their religion among so many god/ gds/ goddesses, the voted on Jesus Christ the Nazarene to be their new god.”

Fact: Let me list down each of his claims, followed with what actually is the fact after each:

(a) Constantine and Eusebius were close friends.

Fact: They were not. Constantine, by the time the Council was convened, was not chummy with Eusebius of Nicomedia, but with Hosius of Cordova. Hosius of Cordova was his emissary to Arius, likewise his counselor on spiritual matters.

(b) The Council of Nicea was called by Constantine, Eusebius, and others [note the sweeping “others”].

Fact, the Council was called by Constantine and Pope Sylvester.

(c) The Council was attended by priests and teachers of all known pagan religions.

Fact: St Athanasius, in his letter “Ad Afros,” pegged the number of attendees at 318 bishops, excluding various priests, deacons, and acolytes. Most of the bishops were Greeks. Among the Latin bishops were Hosius of Cordova, Cecilian of Carthage, Mark of Calabria, Nicasius of Dijon, Donnus of Stridon in Pannonia, and the two Roman priests, Victor and Vincentius, representing the pope. The assembly counted among its most famous members St. Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Nicholas of Myra.

Several bishops from outside the Roman Empire came to the Council. They came from Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace, which is perhaps why my opponent claims pagans were among the participants.

(d) The Council was convened to discuss the formation of the new religion.

Fact: The Council was convened to deal with the heresy of Arius.

As early as 320 or 321 St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, convoked a council at Alexandria. At that council, more than one hundred bishops from Egypt condemned Arius for asserting that Christ was not God like the Father, but a creature made in time.

Despite this, Arius continued to officiate in his church and to enlist followers. St. Alexander drove Arius out of Alexandria, causing Arius to go Nicomedia via Palestine.

During this time St. Alexander wrote his "Epistola encyclica", to which Arius replied. After this, it was clear that their quarrel had gone past mediation. This tiff began to pit Churchman against Churchman, the situation made worse by the war which broke out between Constantine and Liicinius, the Emperor in the East which made the situation worse. And which fueled the religious conflict during the years 322323.

When finally Constantine became the sole Emperor, he took it upon himself to re-establish religious peace as well as restore civil order. Using his substantial influence as emperor, he trie to prevail upon St. Alexander and Arius to stand down.

It is plain that the emperor did not then grasp the import of the controversy. Hosius of Cordova, his counsellor in religious matters and the emissary he sent to Alexandria bore the imperial letter to Alexandria, but failed. It was then that Constantine decided that no other measure could solve the problem except through an ecumenical council which he lost no time in getting Pope Sylvester to convene.

(e) This new religion is called “Council of Nicea.”Fact: The Council of Nicea is not a religion.

(f) The Council was convened in 325 A.D,

Fact; The Council was convened in A.D. 325 (anno domini dates written e.g., “A.D. 325,” Not “325 A.D.”), specifically May 20 till August 25.

(g) The Council voted Jesus Christ to be the new God.

Fact: The Council came up with the creed, or symbol which was done by June 19; the canons; and the synodal decree.

Here is the Creed which is what Catholics profess in every Holy Mass:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again withglory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (Ibelieve) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Here are the canons:

• Canon 1: On the admission, or support, or expulsion of clerics mutilated by choice or byviolence.• Canon 2: Rules to be observed for ordination, the avoidance of undue haste, the deposition of those guilty of a grave fault.• Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.• Canon 4: Concerning episcopal elections.• Canon 5: Concerning the excommunicate.• Canon 6: Concerning patriarchs and their jurisdiction.• Canon 7: confirms the right of the bishops of Jerusalem to enjoy certain honours.• Canon 8: concerns the Novatians.• Canon 9: Certain sins known after ordination involve invalidation.• Canon 10: Lapsi who have been ordained knowingly or surreptitiously must be excluded as soon as their irregularity is known.• Canon 11: Penance to be imposed on apostates of the persecution of Licinius.• Canon 12: Penance to be imposed on those who upheld Licinius in his war on the Christians.• Canon 13: Indulgence to be granted to excommunicated persons in danger of death.• Canon 14: Penance to be imposed on catechumens who had weakened under persecution.• Canon 15: Bishops, priests, and deacons are not to pass from one church to another.• Canon 16: All clerics are forbidden to leave their church. Formal prohibition for bishops to ordainfor their diocese a cleric belonging to another diocese.• Canon 17: Clerics are forbidden to lend at interest.• Canon 18: recalls to deacons their subordinate position with regard to priests.• Canon 19: Rules to be observed with regard to adherents of Paul of Samosata who wished to return to the Church.• Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing.The Council did NOT vote Jesus Christ to be God. Jesus Christ is God way way long before the Council convened. The Bible proof may be found in my opening statement.

CONCLUSION

Constantine was born from a one-night liaison between a young Roman office, Flavius Constantius, and a peasant maid named Helena. Nine years, after, Flavius Constantius became governor of Dalmatia, where, unknown to him, his son Constantine was growing up. When two Roman soldiers cuffed the boy for annoying their horses, Helena rebuked them. They had struck the governor’s son, she said. And, as proof, she produced Falvius Constantius’ old military cloak. The soldiers reported the incident, and as in a fairy tale, the governor married the peasant girl and was reunited with his son.

Given this background, it is easy to understand how Constantine seems to firmly believe in an invisible hand that unerringly guides him in everything he does. Keeping in mind his seminal experience on the Milvian bridge, it’s easy to see how Constantine must have firmly believed that it is the Christian God who’s been helping him. It’s no surprise, then, that Constantine did everything in his power to help the Church.

This is one little detail that my opponent missed, which caused him to be wrong in EVERY ONE of his claims.

Direct, we beseech you, O Lord, our actions by your inspiration, and further them by your gracious assistance, that every word and work of ours may always begin with you, and by you be likewise happily ended.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Be it resolved: There is a clear relationship between population growth and economic growth.

Opening Statement: In by Mar 6Rebuttal: In by Mar 13Five questions: In by Mar 20Answer to Five Questions: In by Mar 27Closing: In by April 6

AFFIRMATIVE OPENING STATEMENT

Peace.

I do not write this note for the opportunity to suggest you do something silly like random suicide.I write this note because I respect your intelligence. I write this note because like you, I am "pro-life" or more accurately I am "pro quality life," something that is lacking in our country.

This is where we stand

We are the 12th most populous nation in the world with a fertility rate of 3.03%. We are 5th on the Global Hunger Survey, 40% polled have experienced involuntary hunger.

Forty-four percent (44%) of our population earn less than $2 /day and 66% of the population are engaged in unsustainable environmental and natural resource usage.The lack of employment opportunities here has led to 11 million OFWs From 1903 to present, we have grown to 94 million and left only 10% of our forests and coral reefs. The lack of good environmental policies has left water pollution unchecked.

I'm sure some of you will agree, based on those statistics we're in deep shit. Our financial and environmental resources are stretched thin. On an economic perspective, overpopulation is looming and there is a real need for non-coercive, non-invasive population development program. At the heart of a good population development program, is a good reproductive health program that empowers women to control their own childbearing.

What happens if we don’t implement a population development program within the next years

Our government may pull a miracle and reduce poverty rates within the next years through sensible economic policies and good use of foreign aid. Without a decent population development program, reduction in poverty rates will not mean reduction in the total number of people living in poverty. Within the next years, with or without a change in poverty rates, our country will have more poor people living under $2 a day.

Population-Poverty Nexus

People living in poverty can rise to the middle class when provided with education, sound health and good employment and business opportunities. However, this rise is primarily buoyed by expansion in education and health services. With more people to educate and to take care of, the government (or more accurately, the nation) will find it more difficult to provide these services. An exploding population, much like ours, will need rapid expansions of education and health systems. You and I can agree that we are not succeeding.

For the fiscal year of 2010, the Department of Education, the Commission on Higher Education and the state universities and colleges have been allocated P185.5 B, while the Department of Health has been allocated 24.65 B. If our population grows at our current fertility rate, in 30 years, we will be a nation of 150 million and we will need to spend twice as much on our education and health systems. Only time will tell if our economy will be robust enough to provide us with such financial resources.

Some of you may argue that instead of looking at our labor force as a liability, we could turn it into strength, like India, a country who hasn’t been successful in implementing its population development programs.

Investing in human resources is investing in quality education and health. Without the expansion of much needed health and education services, we are damning the next generation of Filipinos to be less competitive, less educated, less healthy and more susceptible to chronic poverty. Pervasive corruption and dismal public policies are contributing factors and the additional number of children to educate and take care of is making the problem worse, not better.

Even with minimum corruption and sensible government policies, the more children we have on a weakened economy, the less our chances are at making the next generation contributing citizens and the less our chances to develop an economy that can sustain us.

India is not a success story. Eighty percent (80%) of the Indian population lives on $2 a day and 41% of the total population lives on $1.25 a day.

Why we need a Population Development Program / Reproductive Health Program

It’s more common to hear economists touting there is no relationship between population growth and economic growth, a contrast to the neo-Malthusian theory of previous decades.

However, new evidence shows that the Neo-Malthusians may have been on to something. A study by Thomas Merrick on population and poverty concluded:

“Family planning alone will not necessarily reduce poverty in developing countries, but neither will many of the present models of economic development. On the other hand, a slower rate of population growth, combined with sound and equitable economic development and the reduction of gender inequality, appears increasingly likely to achieve that goal.

While fertility decisions are a private matter, there is a role for public policy. In an increasing number of countries, public and private providers are enabling women to choose when and how many children they will have, by providing information and safe, effective means of fertility regulation. In cases where the health system fails to do this or when there is an imbalance between the individual and the social costs of reproductive behaviors, public policy needs to address these failures by improving the information and regulatory environment. Additionally, when cost is an obstacle to effective fertility regulation by poor women, subsidizing services may be an appropriate approach.

In sum, fertility and family planning do matter for poverty reduction—for poor households and for poor countries. They are not the only, or even the most important, factors in poverty reduction. The topic has been a controversial one, and critics have reacted to statements that exaggerate the links between fertility and poverty by minimizing or denying them. Thus, it is important that policymakers understand the new evidence supporting the view that lower fertility does contribute to poverty reduction, and that public policies that help poor people better manage their reproductive lives have societal as well as individual benefits.

Lower Fertility Rates is not the magic bullet to poverty. It is a critical factor in economic development and poverty reduction that should be considered when making economic policies. Lower fertility rates provide the opportunity for the country to acquire economic gains. Countries unable to lower fertility rates or do not make public policies to empower women to control reproduction exacerbate economic problems.

Martha Campbell of the Bixby Center states "No country, with the exception of a small number of anomalous oil-rich states, has gotten out of poverty while maintaining high fertility rates."

Why the Government needs to fund Family Planning / Reproductive Health or have public policies for Reproductive Health.

During the 1990s when the Neo-Malthusian theory was being discredited, family planning was mostly left as a private decision which the private sector will address without need for government intervention.

However, this “private” decision is mostly dependent on the woman to control her reproduction. Both neo-Malthusians and its critics failed to account that a women’s control over childbearing is affected by factors such as “the sheer unavailability of contraceptive supplies and services in some parts of the world; cultural and religious opposition to birth control, which often inhibits free individual choice; the high cost of many contraceptives relative to family income; and women's unequal educational and social status in most parts of the developing world.” (Merrick 2002)

If a woman is unable to overcome these limiting factors to control her childbearing, she effectively has little reproductive freedom.

Women in the country and all over the world with little reproductive freedom will most likely give birth to more citizens susceptible to poverty.

“High birth rates may reflect not only the survival calculus of the poor, but the disproportionate powerlessness of women as well.” (Lappe & Schurman 2000)

Poverty marginalizes women. Poor women tend to have higher fertility rates. High fertility rates tend to deprive the next generation of investment and that in turn causes poverty.

Lappe and Schurman note the shifting and cyclic relationship between fertility and poverty, “in the social perspective it is the realities of poverty that lead to both rapid population growth and hunger. High fertility becomes an effect more than a cause of poverty and hunger.”

Families unable to meet their desired fertility rate will make less financial investments per child. A family with one child can invest as much as P5,558 while a family with nine children can only invest as much as P682. Health spending per capita also drops from P1,700 to P150. (NDHS 2003). When parents make less investments to a child's education and wellbeing, the child becomes more susceptible to poverty.

Human Capital Investment & Family Size (eta, 2/22/2011)

Fertility - Poverty association

The Unmet need for Contraception and Family Planning

Family Planning is not about having 2 children per family or the government coercing families to have 2 children only. Rather, it is about meeting the desired fertility usually with considerations on the family’s resources.

Sixty one percent (61%) of women do not want additional children and 50.6% of the youth wants only to have 2 children. Only half of married women practice family planning. (NDHS 2003)

The average desired fertility rate for the Filipino woman is at 2.5. Our current fertility rate is at 3.03.

Clearly, there is an unmet need for family planning or birth control.

The Poorer have an average desired fertility rate of 3.1 - 3.8. Total Fertility Rate is 4.6 - 5.9: a difference of 1.5 - 2.1 unintended childrenThe Middle Class have an average desired fertility rate of 2.6. Total Fertility Rate is 3.5: a difference of 0.9 unintended children.The wealthiest have an average desired fertility rate of 1.7 - 2.2. Total Fertility Rate is 2.0 - 2.8: a difference of 0.3 - 0.6 unintended children.

Larger families among the poor is an indication that the family has not met the desired fertility rate because there is no access to family planning or contraceptives.

Poorer women have as three times more children than wealthier women. The unmet need for contraception is 23.15% for poorer women and 13.6% for wealthier women.

Twenty two percent (22%) of the poorest childbearing women want to avoid pregnancies but do not use any family planning method. At least 41% do not use family planning methods due to lack of information. (Family Planning Survey 2006).

"In the Philippines, large differences in contraceptive use exist by a woman's education. In Thailand where family planning is easy to obtain, these differences have evaporated. It is often assumed that uneducated people want large families, but the data suggest that they have more children because they are unable to surmount the hurdles society puts between them and the birth control they need." (Potts, 2000)

Many of you anti-RHB crowd are laboring under the misapprehension that RHB curtails your freedom to reproduce. It doesn’t.

The consolidated Reproductive Health Bill idealizes a fertility of 2, but it does not mandate or coerce fertility rates. It doesn't need to. These statistics tell us there is considerable number of women in the country who want to control their reproduction but cannot do so because they lack resources or information.

The consolidated Reproductive Health Bill does not discriminate between modern contraception, abstinence or NFP. However, in the interest of promoting “morality”, conservatives (like the Roman Catholic Church) would prefer withholding information, abstinence and NFP over modern contraception. I have discussed that marginalized women lack information and resources and consequently, lack control over their reproduction.

This lack of communication and reproductive education which our culture has heavily practiced to curtail youth interest in sex and promote abstinence has been ineffective and unbeneficial. It also hasn't empowered women.

The NSO notes for 2004, almost 8% pregnancies have mothers aged 15-19. Almost 30% of Filipino women bear a child before reaching the age of 21. Four million Filipinos aged 15-19 engaged in sexual intercourse and half of them are from poorer families with no knowledge of reproduction or contraception.

An alarming 1 out of 4 teen mothers stop schooling to find jobs. In 2007, approximately 2% of women aged 15-19 got pregnant with their first child. (USAAID, 2007)

Lack of information does not impede sexual experience and prevent early pregnancies.

NFP is more applicable as a spacing method when a couple has had one child. With perfect use, NFP has a failure rate of 2.9%. In practice, it is 24%. Studies done locally and internationally show natural methods including NFP “is not for everyone.” NFP also “fails to address private and social costs of mistimed and unwanted pregnancy.” (Pastrana, Harris 2011)

NFP has been heavily promoted by the government and the church because it doesn’t cost anything. Despite the long years of attempting to make it a standard, NFP has only a usage rate of 6.4% (LAM 0.4%). The Withdrawal Method has a greater usage rate of 9.8%. (NDHS 2008)

The Current Deal: Low Contraceptive Prevalence and High Number of Unintended Pregnancies

While 97% of Filipinos believe in the importance of controlling fertility, contraceptive prevalence in the country is only 50%, very low compared to Singapore (62%), Thailand (72%) and Vietnam (76%).

Birth Control / Contraception Usage (NDHS 2008)

This unmet need for birth control puts women at risk for unintended pregnancies. Three out of 10 Filipino women at risk for unintended pregnancy do not practice birth control and these women make approximately 7 out of 10 pregnancies.

In 2008, women not using modern contraception account for more than 2/3 of unintended pregnancies. Women who practice modern contraception account for only 8% of unintended pregnancies. In contrast, women who practice traditional methods (NFP) account for 25% of unintended pregnancies.

The same year has 1.9 million unintended or mistimed pregnancies with 55% of mothers giving birth sooner than they intended to and 45% did not want a pregnancy at all.

Unintended pregnancies put both mother and child more at risk for inadequate medical care, maternal morbidity, abortion, fetal death and lower quality of health of mother and child.

Maternal Morbidities for Unintended and Intended Pregnancies

In 2007, over 200,000 maternal deaths (unintended pregnancies) could have been prevented through effective contraception. There is an estimated 400,000 maternal morbidity cases each year.

In 2008, miscarriages accounted for 3,700 maternal deaths and an estimated 1,600 are unintended pregnancies. Approximately 1,000 women died as a result of abortion and 90,000 women were hospitalized for complications. The lack of maternal care do not improve women’s health and the health of their children.

The DALY (disability-adjusted life year) is an internationally used measure of the years of productive life lost to death and disability from disease and other health conditions. In 2008, Filipino women lost an estimated 311,000 productive years of their lives due to conditions related to pregnancy and birth—167,000 DALYs were due to intended pregnancies and 144,000 were related to unintended pregnancies. This loss of productive years of life is greater than the annual loss among Filipino men and women from traffic accidents or diabetes.

Poorer women tend to receive less prenatal/neonatal care than wealthier women, have less chances of acquiring a skilled medical professional to help with delivery and have shorter birth intervals. Spacing births for 2 years or more increases the mother and child’s survival. Medical care increases a child’s survival as much as 3.6 times.

Women using no method and traditional methods account for 89% of abortion cases

Why we need Modern Contraception and Funding

With traditional methods failing to be a standard despite years of government campaign, it is only logical not to discriminate and promote all methods of contraception especially modern contraception, make every method accessible and let couples or childbearing women decide which ones to use to increase contraceptive prevalence.

Increased prevalence of accessible and effective contraception and information decreases the number of unintended pregnancies and consequently, the number of abortions. Modern contraceptives prevent approximately 112 million abortions in the developing world each year. (Singh et al, 2009)

At least P5.5 B are spent each year in health care costs for managing unintended pregnancies and its complications. Increased contraceptive prevalence lowers the number of unintended pregnancies and costs for medical care.

abortion and contraception trends in Kazahkstan

Government funding to meet the needs of contraception and information of marginalized women is important. Lower unintended pregnancy incidence means healthier women, children and society in general. It’s also less expensive and less problematic for the state in the long run.

Minimum Health Care Costs for Unintended Pregnancies

Why we need a Reproductive Health Law

We need a Reproductive Health Law because

1. providing reproductive health care will make women, children and society healthier.2. with all the modern advances, there is no excuse for high maternal death rates or for women and children to have lousy health when prenatal and neonatal care is possible.3. there is an unmet need for family planning information and resources.4. it’s the heart of a good population development program, which is a key component in economic development

My dear anti-RHB brothers and sisters, isn’t improving the welfare and health of our nation a moral thing to do? We're truly in neck-deep shit. What we're currently doing, leaving women marginalized, unempowered and unable to control their own bodies, is not only harmful to women, it is harmful to children and to our country.

If you are truly "pro life", I urge you to reconsider your stance in the light of these information.

Mabuhay.

Yours truly,Me

Thanks to Francis and Christene for volunteering as 'sounding boards' of sorts. @Francis, couldn't put comparative data there. If there's nothing to do next week, I'll make a note on the population-economy trends of ASEAN countries or make a humungous chart.

Comments are welcome, especially those who do not support the RHB. What we need are civil discussions, not insult sessions.

Sir, just a short comment on your statement below on PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS.

Paul is not referring to CHOIR OF ANGELS as you said

Paul used the same words in describing Satan and his evil powers. See Chapter 6:10-12.

Catholic:

You're right about Eph 6. However, that's not the "powers and principalities" that St Paul refers to it Eph 3:10. Note, for instance, that St. Paul clearly says "powers and principalities in the heavenly realms." Scripture says nothing unclean may enter heaven, and devils are barred from heaven. The ones in Eph 6 must be the angels which joined the rebellion, the "non-serviam" group of Lucifer.

The angels-- before they were allowed into the beatific vision (seeig God face-to-face)-- were given a test. Those who passed were allowed the beatific vision. Those who failed the test joined Lucifer. Of course, we don't know precisely what the test was, but theologians speculate that the angels were given a preview of the suffering Christ, and they were ordered to pay homage to him. A number, conscious of their dignity as angels, refused to pay homage to the suffering Christ.

Eph 3:8-10

Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,

Protestant:

You mean both usage are different?. One refers to choir of angels and the other refers of satan and evil forces and it is because of the absence of "HEAVENLY REALMS".

Now with wide open eyes read again. the phrase "IN THE HEAVENLY REALS" is present in BOTH texts. See 3:10 and 6:12.

Do you mean Paul is not careful enough to choose words so as not to mislead his readers?

If I have tell you, Chapter 3 talks about the awesome power of Church drawn from its union with Christ, the power to speak the Gospel even to the dominion of Satan. Once the church speaks, the dominion of satan is infiltrated and invaded. However, in doing this tasking, the church should be careful because it is not dealing with human powers but that of Satan. How to be careful? PUT ON THE FULL ARMOR OF GOD. [This is what Paul points out in 6]

Note further that heavenly realms is interpreted in other version as SPIRITUAL REALMS. Something, someone and somewhere that human eyes cannot see. That's why we need spiritual power [drawn from God] to counter it.

Please check the doctrine of your teachers in your next sessions.

Catholic:

St. Thomas Aquinas, a quack? Wow. But your interpretation here is not very far from the second post I sent. Please read it first.

Protestant:

Sir, simple lang naman ang issue dito. Do you agree with me that Paul is referring the same subjects in 3:10 and 6:12. You don't have to drag thomas here. Kawawa na yong tao patay na nga idadamay pa natin.

Protestant:

2. The correct interpretation of PRINCIPALITIES, AUTHORITIES AND POWERS IN THE HEAVENLY REALMS. - You say CHOIR OF ANGELS quoting Thomas and I say SATAN AND HIS EVIL POWERS referring to usage of the same words in 6:1-12.

CAN WE CLEAR THIS UP FIRST BEFORE YOU GO FURTHER TO THE NEXT EPISODEProtestant:

On the message you texted. I really do not claim to be THE ONLY CORRECT INTERPRETATION. What I am saying is my own personal understanding of the text. If St. Thomas is correct then I am wrong. If am correct then Thomas is wrong. As simple as that. I even believe that there might be some 'PROTESTANT" who hold the same understanding with you and St. Thomas but I cannot use them simply because they are who's who in the Christian world. I must speak or write my own understanding. I based my opinion on the following [I said it already}

1. Paul re-use of words in 62. What was Paul's experience in Ephesians during his visit there [Acts 19]

From the very start, I've been telling you that I am using an NIV, but I always refer to other versions like the Revised King James Version before I make something a doctrine.

Now, I think we have no problem with chapter 6 as referring to wickedness, darkness, evil of this world.

You now prove that what Paul is referring in 3 is different from that of 6. As I have said, Paul should not have been to careful to use words.

Let me explain to you why I believe that both 3 and 6 are one AND the same.

Read the account of Paul's ministry in Ephesus [Acts19]. You will notice that this place is a STRONGHOLD OF SATAN AND HIS SPIRITUAL FORCES. Consider the following account:

v13 - There were jews who practice spiritism and tried to invoke the name of the Lord.v13 - Demon-possesed people are many in the placev14 - Notice what the seven sons of sceva were doingv15 - Evil spirit is very present in their midst that they can even hear the wordsv16- There was violent manifestation of the evil spiritv18 - Many are practicing divination and spiritism but hide it. Now they confessv19 - A number practice sorceryv20- They earn a living [huge money] out of this evil practice

Continue reading from 23 to 34 and you will notice that this place is really a satanic dominion and people are demon-possessed and influenced.

Now, when Paul left and wrote the EPHESIANS letter later, he referred to his experience during his visit as PROOF THAT WHEN THE CHURCH [headed by him] PREACHED THE WORD in EPHESUS, all this POWER, PRINCIPALITIES AND AUTHORITIES IN THE HEAVENLY REALMS trembles. In fact such a dominion was shaken, infiltrated and invaded because many came to believe in the name of the Lord. THIS IS WHAT HE MEANT WHEN HE WROTE CHAPTER 3

SO, IS 3 AND 6 THE SAME. YES NA YES!!!

Catholic:

You're reading something into Eph 3 that is NOT there. Note that all you offer as proof is the existence then in Ephesus of a robust superstition among its people, chiefly the worship of (Diana, was it? I'm in an Internet cafe outside the Tagoloan NHS, I left my things inside the school, and I cannot verify). Even if you state that this superstition is to such an extent that Demetrius and the other silversmiths were able to whip up such hatred for Paul that he had to leave Ephesus in a hurry, still this falls short of a convincing argument.

Protestant:

Well, as expected, you will always not be convinced ever since. I know this already from the beginning. But I don't have to turn black and blue to make you believe me. That's why if you will allow me to teach you how to read epistles, always read it with ACTS as the background. Because there in these letters are solutions, encouragement and additional Pauline teachings on prevailing problems of places where he has been during his missionary journeys, or problems brought to his attention by other believers who have gone to such places.

Sometimes people cannot see this truth because they are blinded by the veil of tradition of their religion.

What's your Bible? I've been checking the translations of half a dozen Bibles including the NIV, and every one mentions "wickedness" or "darkness" or "of this world" which clearly distinguishes it from the "powers" and "principalities" of Eph 3

So let me throw back the question at you: are the "powers"and "principalities" in Eph 3 and Eph 6 the same?

Protestant: I thought you have your bible always with you. Or you can access www.bible.com. For now, I have 2 concerns:

1. The Offices mentioned by Paul in 4:8-13 [why no mention of pope, priests and nuns] and if this tells us that the church is HIERARCHICAL, who's on top, then next in line down to the last.

2. The correct interpretation of PRINCIPALITIES, AUTHORITIES AND POWERS IN THE HEAVENLY REALMS. - You say CHOIR OF ANGELS quoting Thomas and I say SATAN AND HIS EVIL POWERS referring to usage of the same words in 6:1-12.CAN WE CLEAR THIS UP FIRST BEFORE YOU GO FURTHER TO THE NEXT EPISODE. Thanks.

Catholic:

I dont' have a Bible always with me. For one, I use the Navarre Bible, and it's a 12-volume Bible so obviously I couldn't be lugging it around.That I'm able to respond to you quickly is because I happen to have brought with me the Eph-Phil-Col-Philemon volume.

The Navarre Bible is really the RSV Bible with commentaries by the Theology Department of the University of Navarre in Spain. The Gospels are one volume each, so is Acts, another volume is Romans-Galatians -- 12 in all.

But I use other sources as well. Catholic Answers is one. The 3-part exposition is Tim Staples'. Notice that Timn Staples' Eph 3:8-10 says the same thing as the Navarre Bible. Why? Simple: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Catholic:

No, St. Paul is not referring to the same beings as my earlier post clearly shows:

Eph 3:10-12

This text shows that the apostolic ministry of preaching has a universal, cosmic impact. Thanks to the Church's preaching of "the mystery," it's made known not only to mankind but also to the principalities and powers of the heavens. This preaching reveals the hidden, eternal plans of salvation whereby Jews and Gentiles, by being converted to Christ come to have an equal place in the Church, and this, in turn, reveals the "mystery" of salvation even to the angels(cf 1 Pet 1:12), who came to realize the harmony that lies in God's various interventions in the course of history, from the Creation to the Redemption, including the history of the people of Israel.

The "powers" and "principalities" refer to the angelic powers which, according to Jewish belief, were the promulgators and guardians of the Law and whose mission included the government of men. But these "powers" did not know what God's plans were until they were carried out by Christ and his Church. In this passage, St. Paul re-asserts very clearly Christ's supremacy over all these powers, and the Church's role in bringing all creation to recognize that Christ is Lord of all

St. Jerome, St. Thomas interpret the "principalities and powers" as being good angels, like the "thrones" and"dominions (cf Col 1:16)and virtutes ("powers": cf Eph 1:21). If we add to these titles appearing in St. Paul's letters those to be found in other books of Scripure-- cherubim, seraphim, archangels, and angels -- we get the nine angelic hierachies known to tradition

Eph 6:10-12

After these counsels to parents and children, servants and masters, the Apostle says something very important: all need to be prepared to struggle against "the principalities" of this world (v.12). He is referring to those angels who rebelled against God and whom Christ has already overcome (1 Cor 15:24; Col 1:13-14; 2:15). but against whom we still have to contend.This is a struggle which must be pursued to the end

Catholic:

Okay. Let’s put this matter to rest by discussing it thoroughly. It started with my claim about Eph 3:8-10:

Eph 3:8-10

Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,

Here’s what I said about Eph 3:8-10:

St. Thomas Aquinas speculates as to the truth behind this text. In his commentary on Ephesians, St Thomas says “he means through which the manifold wisdom of God is made known to the angels is designated by his saying ‘through the Church’.”

St Thomas explains that here when Scripture talks about it being the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in god before we were ever created, it was the plan of God that through the Church, his manifold wisdom maybe made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places.

What are principalities and powers? They are choirs of angels. Angels are far superior to man through the beatific vision as the saints in heaven are. However, he explains that it is because of the fact that the Church is the instrument of God in that her teaching has God as her first principal, hence, the Church can truly be said to teach angels. The angels can learn because how the grace of God works through man, the angels learn.

The point is, if the Church teaches angels, how much more do we humans need to heed to the authority of the Church? In this passage, St Paul teaches about the glory of the Church and the authority of the ChurchTo this you countered:

Protestant:

The correct interpretation of PRINCIPALITIES, AUTHORITIES AND POWERS IN THE HEAVENLY REALMS. - You say CHOIR OF ANGELS quoting Thomas and I say SATAN AND HIS EVIL POWERS referring to usage of the same words in 6:1-12.

You mean both usage are different?. One refers to choir of angels and the other refers of satan and evil forces and it is because of the absence of "HEAVENLY REALMS".

Now with wide open eyes read again. the phrase "IN THE HEAVENLY REALS" is present in BOTH text

Do you mean Paul is not careful enough to choose words so as not to mislead his readers?

Let me explain to you why I believe that both 3 and 6 are one AND the same.

Read the account of Paul's ministry in Ephesus [Acts19]. You will notice that this place is a STRONGHOLD OF SATAN AND HIS SPIRITUAL FORCES. Consider the following account:

v13 - There were jews who practice spiritism and tried to invoke the name of the Lord.v13 - Demon-possesed people are many in the placev14 - Notice what the seven sons of sceva were doingv15 - Evil spirit is very present in their midst that they can even hear the wordsv16- There was violent manifestation of the evil spiritv18 - Many are practicing divination and spiritism but hide it. Now they confessv19 - A number practice sorceryv20- They earn a living [huge money] out of this evil practice

Continue reading from 23 to 34 and you will notice that this place is really a satanic dominion and people are demond possessed and influenced.

Now, when Paul left and wrote the EPHESIANS letter later, he referred to his experience during his visit as PROOF THAT WHEN THE CHURCH [headed by him] PREACHED THE WORD in EPHESUS, all this POWER, PRINCIPALITIES AND AUTHORITIES IN THE HEAVENLY REALMS treambles. In fact such a dominion was shaken, infiltrated and invaded because many came to believe in the name of the Lord. THIS IS WHAT HE MEANT WHEN HE WROTE CHAPTER 3

SO, IS 3 AND 6 THE SAME. YES NA YES!!!

If I have tell you, Chapter 3 talks about the awesome power of Church drawn from its union with Christ, the power to speak the Gospel even to the dominion of Satan. Once the church speaks, the dominion of satan is infiltrated and invaded. However, in doing this tasking, the church should be careful because it is not dealing with human powers but that of Satan. How to be careful? PUT ON THE FULL ARMOR OF GOD. [This is what Paul points out in 6]

Catholic:

This is my reply.

1 Peter 1:10-12:

Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

Here, St. Paul describes the eagerness, the desire of the Old Testament prophets who prophesied about the coming Christ: whom it will be, when would he come, etc. Paul is telling the Ephesians how lucky they are to see this very awaited event unfolding right before their eyes in the good news preached to them through the Holy Spirit, which EVEN ANGELS LONG TO LOOK

Now the Greek word for “look” connotes bending over carefully in order to get a better look. Through this metaphor then, St. Paul is telling us about angels in heaven contemplating with joy the mystery of salvation. St. Thomas in his commentaries on Ephesians describe the angels—because they have the beatific vision-- as knowing way more than any human being , BUT the mystery of salvation including the details of the Messiah they did not have a foreknowledge of.

This full mystery of salvation (the great “mystery” that St. Paul often speaks of) is being unfolded, being made manifest to the angels as they observe the grace of God at work for the salvation of man, specifically, in the way God ordained for his Son to assume a human nature, suffer to free us from the slavery of sin, found his Church to guide his flock to heaven, exactly as Eph 3:8-10 describes.

Against this argument you offer the claim that the “powers” and “principalities “ in Eph 3 is the same as those in Eph 6 on the basis of the existence of the words “heavenly realms” in both. You also seem to have missed the remainder of v.12, the part which speaks of these “powers” and “principalities” as being of the “present darkness,” as being “hosts of wickedness,” tags not found in Eph 3. This is proof-texting at its very bad: splicing a passage (v.12) and turning a blind eye on what’s inconvenient.

You seem to see evil in every “powers” and “principalities” that you see. In fact, they are not all bad. Tell me the “principalities” in Col 1:16 are evil. Tell me also that the “power” in Eph 1:21 are likewise bad.

Finally, you offer the fact that there’s so much (let me use a very strong word) witchcraft around, ergo, the “powers” and “principalities” must be malevolent. In Law, that’s what would be called circumstantial evidence. You couldn’t get that case past the fiscal, sorry.

P.S. You might offer Col 2:15. To understand the passage you have to remember that around this time, there were pre-Gnostic religious Judaizing undercurrents resulting in an improper cult rendered to the angels which undermined doctrinally the role of Christ in creation and redemption, a role which is absolutely primary and exclusive.

Catholic:

And by the way, regarding my text message to you yesterday, GRANTING LANG that the "powers" and "principalities" in Eph 3:8-10 are, as you claim, malevolent, DOES IT DIMINISH IN ANY WAY the honor and distinction given to the Church, that "through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the 'principalities' and 'powers' in the heavenly places"?

Why didn't St. Paul say "that through the Bible, the manifold wisdom of God may be made manifest" if, indeed, it's the Bible who's the final authority on matters of faith, morals, and discipline? WHY?

Another thing. You know I couldn't help chuckling when I read Eph 3:10 and imagining that the "powers" and "principalities" there are evil. That'd REALLY be funny. I mean why would God want to make known to evil beings his manifold wisdom?

NOTE: MY “PROTESTANT” FRIEND DID NOT ATTEMPT TO REBUT AFTER MY 1 PETER 1:10-12 REPLY SO I ASSUMED HE HAD TO ADMIT THAT THE “POWERS” AND “PRINCIPALITIES” IN EPH 3:8-10 ARE GOOD ANGELS. I FELT THERE WAS NO NEED TO RUB IT IN SO I ALLOWED HIM TO EXIT GRACEFULLY.

Protestant:

But my question is this: As church performs this tasking, where will it [church] get its wisdom

(FACE SAVING EXIT)

Catholic:

There can be only one answer to this question: the Holy Spirit, in fulfillment of Jesus’ promise, as recorded in Matthew that he will be with his Church till the end of time, and that hell will never overcome it. And that’s why the Pope, when in discharge of his office, speaks on matters and morals, is infallible – meaning he is prevented from making any error. Now the question becomes: what does the pope use as his basis for making such pronouncements? The answer: the deposit of faith (the body of teachings Jesus Christ left to his Apostles which we now have in oral and written form which the Church jealously guards to ensure its purity and absolute fidelity to Christ’s teaching.

Humanae Vitae is not a dogma, but it shows this teaching authority of the Church at work. I’m not sure if it was Rene Alingasa or you to whom I’ve explained it, but no problem, I will explain.

It was the 1960s. the decade before, the Pill was developed, for the first time giving to women the control of their fertility. It was development which shook the world, as multitudes tried it. The Church was not spared. The Pill made inroads into Catholic homes, resulting in such a clamor for Church blessing that Pope Paul VI formed a commission to study and recommend. There were (if I’m not mistaken) 72 members, theologians, doctors, moralists, Jesuits, and they presented the Pope with their report (called the Majority Report) recommending approval of Pill use. There was, however, another report, called the Minority Report because only 3 members recommended it.

But you know what? Pope Paul VI adapted the Minority Report (which became Humanae Viate). The Pope knew what would happen next—the Church was split asunder, and there was (almost) a rebellion against the Pope. Pope Paul VI was vilified even by bishops and cardinals. But the Pope stood his ground. Today, more than 40 years later, as the world woke up to the horrors the Pill has wrought – divorce, contraception, wild sex, pornography, abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage – people are saying Pope Paul VI was right.

a Protestant:

No. And I have no problem recognizing this honor and distinction given to the church.

Catholic:

You agree then that the Church is the final authority on matters of faith and morals, the one who’s tasked with settling disputes should two parties have the same idea of the same thing?

Protestant:

If the church go around the community telling about this ‘MANIFOLD WISDOM OF GOD” and someone asks what’s the basis that will prove that this MANIFOLD WISDOM is indeed of God?

Catholic:

There seems to be a disconnect between what the passage says and what you’re saying it says. What the passage’s saying is “through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known. . .” meaning, by observing what happens in the Church, even angels learn how God’s manifold wisdom works. The contraception issue above, for instance, could be one example. How St. Thomas or St. Augustine labor to explain difficult Bible passages could be one. How the Church handled the Aryan heresy coud be another. In other words, what the Church does and what the Church has been doing is instructing even angels on the manifold wisdom of God.

Protestant:

Because the Bible cannot literally speak.

Catholic:

PRECISELY! Scripture is inspired. In Scripture is the word of God. Scripture is infallible an dis fit for instruction. The problem is just as you said: it cannot literally speak. That’s why SOMEONE’s needed to interpret it. Not just anyone. Not even everyone. But the only one who was given by Christ the power and the authority to: the Church.

Protestant:

To the church. But outside of what the bible says, the church cannot speak of, unless we want to insist on human traditions.

Catholic:

Ask yourself the question: why did the Church not simply give way to Henry VIII when he asked for the annulment of his marriage? That would have prevented Henry from yanking England out of the Church. Yet the Church refused.

And why didn’t the Church simply accommodate Martin Luther. That would have saved the Church from being torn apart? ON the personal level, why didn’t St. Thomas More simply acceded to Henry VIII’s wish for his endorsement of the marriage, that would have save St. Thomas More his life.? Why did he choose to die instead?

Crazy, di ba? In the same way that Pope Paul was crazy when he didn’t adopt the Majority Report. But then, as hat would probably be apparent to you, they could not, because of the Holy Spirit at work in them. Nakakaiyak, but it’s true.

Protestant:

And why did Paul counseled Timothy this way [KJV]?

Catholic:

No question about that, Scripture is everything the “Protestants” say about it, EXCEPT Sola Scriptura which quite simply is un-Biblical.

Protestant:

When was the Church established?

Catholic:

This is my own belief, but from all times I guess. It is God’s nature to be happy, and to share this happiness with many. IN the sense that there is no past, present, and future for God, this desire of his, which found its fulfillment in the Creation, especially of man, provided the beginnings of his establishment of his Church.

Protestant;

When was the first use of scriptures as recorded in the Gospels and who used it for what purpose.

Catholic:

I don’t know.

And by the way, regarding my text message to you yesterday, GRANTING LANG that the "powers" and "principalities" in Eph 3:8-10 are, as you claim, malevolent, DOES IT DIMINISH IN ANY WAY the honor and distinction given to the Church, that "through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the 'principalities' and 'powers' in the heavenly places"?

Protestant:

No. And I have no problem recognizing this honor and distinction given to the church. Nowhere in my writing can you find me arguing with you on this. But my question is this: As church performs this tasking, where will it [church] get its wisdom. Where will it base the truth that she will be speaking about. If the church go around the community telling about this ‘MANIFOLD WISDOM OF GOD” and someone asks what’s the basis that will prove that this MANIFOLD WISDOM is indeed of God?

Why didn't St. Paul say "that through the Bible, the manifold wisdom of God may be made manifest" if, indeed, it's the Bible who's the final authority on matters of faith, morals, and discipline? WHY?

Because the Bible cannot literally speak. While it is the authoritative word of God, it needs someone to herald it and that tasking is given to the church. But outside of what the bible says, the church cannot speak of, unless we want to insist on human traditions.

And why did Paul counseled Timothy this way [KJV]

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of , knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures [not church ordinances] , which are able to make thee wise unto salvationthrough faith **** which is in Christ Jesus.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.*** - and how this faith acquired by the believer? Romans 10:17 - Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ [Scriptures]

Now, Let me ask you.

1. When was the Church established?

2. When was the first use of scriptures as recorded in the Gospels and who used it for what purpose.Another thing. You know I couldn't help chuckling when I read Eph 3:10 and imagining that the "powers" and "principalities" there are evil.

That'd REALLY be funny. I mean why would God want to make known to evil beings his manifold wisdom

1 Cor 9:27 “ . . . but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.”

1 Cor 9:27

Catholic:

This means that while alive, we should always be vigilant in our perseverance because we can never take things for granted. On the practical plane, this means not letting up on our ascetical struggle, mortifying the flesh, guarding our eyes, etc.

We “ought to have the most secure hope in the help of God, who, so long as we are faithful to his grace, will bring the good work to perfection, just as he began it, working both the will and the performance (Phil 2:13), so that at the end of our lives we can say like Paul:” there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, will reward to me on that day (2 Tim 4:8).

Protestant:

The prize that Paul is saying here is certainly not salvation because if it is, then, salvation becomes a prize or a reward when it is not as discussed earlier based on Romans 6:23 “ For the wages of sin is death, but the free GIFT of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Paul elsewhere talks of it as a crown. I believe that while we are saved by faith alone and salvation is a GIFT, we will be rewarded with crowns because of what we have done while in the Body. This will include our services for the believers/church done in the name of the Lord and righteous things we do as believers.

2 Timothy 4:8 - Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.Again, if you take this “crowns” and “rewards” as salvation, then it renders salvation or eternal life as a REWARD, no longer as a GIFT.

Catholic: That’s a good point, except that Romans 2:7 clearly speaks of salvation (aka eternal life) as a reward “. . .to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he [God] will give eternal life.

Which becomes even clearer with Heb 6:10: “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints. . .”

In Mt 5:12 Jesus promises rich rewards In heaven to those who, for his sake, are scorned and persecuted. In Mt 25:34 ff, the Judge of the World decrees eternal reward for the just on the ground of their good works.

Surely, with all these passages, salvation must also be a reward, in which case, the only way that we can reconcile Romans 6:23 and Romans 2:7 (and Heb 6:10, Mt 5:12, and Mt25:34 ff) is to say that salvation is a gift AND a reward.

And indeed, that’s what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that for the justified, eternal life is BOTH a gift or grace promised by God AND a reward for his own good works and merits .

As God’s grace is the presupposition and foundation of (supernatural) good works, by which man merits eternal life, so salutary works are, AT THE SAME TIME gifts of God AND meritorious acts of man. I’m referring here to TRUE merit, i.e., of meritum de condigno.

Protestant: The Bible is very clear, it is also complete, nothing else is needed.

Catholic: Maybe, except that the Bible itself clearly states otherwise.

For instance, where in the Bible does it show the list of books that are inspired, and which, therefore, should comprise it? If nowhere, then how was its canonicity established? By Catholics? But how would Catholics have been able to? There's only one answer: Sacred Tradition, which is Christ's teaching preached- exactly how Christ commanded it to be.

What is your doctrine on God the Son in relation to God the Father? Is the Son consubstantial with the Father? Who came first: the Father or the Son? Or did neither of them come after the other, both having no beginning? Can you cite passages which support your doctrine?

What is your doctrine with regard to the Son? Does he have two natures- one human, the other divine—or only one? Does he have two persons- one human, the other divine- or only one? Where in the Bible can your answer be found?

Is the Catholic teaching about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son correct or not? Can you show me where in the Bible can your answer be found?

Who wrote Matthew? What Bible passage made you say that?

You will find that you cannot answer the above questions merely by referring to the Bible. Which is why Protestants should follow what the Bible says, and not disown Sacred Tradition. There are things in the Bible that only Sacred Tradition can illuminate.

Those who have placed their faith in Christ, as Peter did, are the church.

Catholic:

This flies right smack into the face of reality, and could have been a joke had not the author sounded so serious.

Could we assume that EVERYONE, okay, let’s not use everyone, but MAJORITY. Could we assume that majority of “Protestantism’s” 33,000 denominations “have placed their faith in Christ? Yes, you’d probably say.

Now I ask you: didn’t Jesus say that his Church would be marked by unity—one Lord. one Faith, one Baptism (Eph 4:3-6; John 10:16)?

Could you, with a straight face, say that “Protestantism’s” wrangling tower of Babel 33,000 denominations display this unity? Some favor water baptism, others Spirit baptism only. Some accept infant baptism, others adult baptism only. Some accept divorce with remarrying, others do not. Some accept abortion others do not. Some accept same-sex marriage, some do not.

Protestant::

Petros, means a small stone (John 1:42). Jesus used a play on words here with petra (“on this rock”) which means a foundation boulder, as in Matthew 7:24, 25 when He described the rock upon which the wise man builds his house.

CatholicCredit: Karl Keating)

As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, “petros” and “petra” simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek “lithos” would have been used.

Protestant:

In addition, the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 3:11) and the head (Ephesians 5:23) of the church.

Catholic:

Catholics believe, perhaps much more than you do, that Christ is both the foundation and the head of the Church. But unlike you, Catholics do not suffer from an all too common “Protestant”malady: the “either-or” dichotomy: either it’s Jesus or it’s not. Somehow, “Protestants” couldn’t believe that, as in this case, Jesus is the foundation and the head, but, while remaining as the foundation and the head, might have delegated this responsibility to Peter, which is what happened as Mt 16:19 and Isaiah 22 clearly shows.

THE POWER OF THE KEYS

Mt 16:19 “I will give to thee [SINGULAR] the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Doubting Protestants could always check the Greek original.

It’s NOT TRUE, however, what the Protestants claim that Jesus gave the other Apostles the same Power of the Keys to the other Apostles. That’s baloney:

(1) In the first place, NOWHERE in Scripture does Jesus give a similar power to the Apostles as Mt 18:18 and Jn 20:23 show the giving of the power and binding to BOTH Peter and the other Apostles. I dare Protestants to show even just one passage in the Bible that shows Jesus giving the Power of the Keys to ANY OTHER.

(2) In the second place, Mt. 16:19 is quite clear: “I will give to thee [SINGULAR] the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Doubting Protestants could always check the Greek original.

(3) And finally, the Keys, as Isaiah 22 and Rev 1:18 clearly show, is the hallmark of AUTHORITY.

You will hear Protestants pooh-pooh the “keys to the kingdom” as a symbolic statement of Peter preaching the Gospel for the first time with an international kingdom. One Protestant would even claim that Peter’s preaching to the “international” audience at Pentecost fulfills once for all the Biblical injunction for the Apostles to preach the kingdom to all the ends of the earth, that this responsibility was fulfilled when Peter, through his sermon to devout Jews from all nations at Pentecost, opened the kingdom of God to the listeners when he preached salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

Silly. I mean, would any Protestant in his right mind claim that? And what about the billions of human beings who would come after the Pentecost crowd would have died, would they be deprived of the benefits the Power of the Keys bring, just because they have not been fortunate enough to have been born when Peter was around?

The Protestants pooh-poohing the Power of the Keys as the phrase means among Catholics could very well be well-founded, EXCEPT that there’s this entire chapter in Scripture—Isaiah 22 – which Jesus definitely knew about, and which he probably used so that the meaning of the “keys of heaven and earth” may not be lost to future human beings.

Let’s go deeper into Isaiah 22 (Credit: Scott Hahn). In v.19 it says “I [referring to the King] will thrust you [referring to the previous chamberlain of the royal household] from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah [the new chamberlain of the royal household], and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder they key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.”

Now, what’s going on here? Hezekiah was, at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers. Now among cabinet ministers, there is one who’s chief, sort of a Prime Minister. Hezekiah, as king, had, as his “Prime Minister” before Shebna, who proved unworthy. So Shebna was expelled, and his departure left his office vacant. Hezekiah had Eliakim fill the vacated post.

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the royal cabinet, but now he is being promoted to the “Prime Minister’s” position. Proof? He is given what other ministers were not given: they keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David.

When Jesus is giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Jesus gives Peter the Prime Minister’s office.

Take this up with ANY Protestant, and he will pooh-pooh Isaiah 22. “Does Isaiah 22 mention the name of Peter?” one asked, in a very silly manner which betrays his fear that Isaiah 22 might be showing him the truth, Imagine, this Protestant has no qualms using Eph 6:1-12 to reference Eph 3:8-10, yet he absolutely refuses to even consider the possibility that Mt 18:18 might reference Isaiah 22. And this should be a lesson to gullible Catholics who are thinking of converting: no matter how knowledgeable your Protestant teacher is, he is not in any position to teach, for the simple reason that he is NOT in possession of the truth. It’s as simple as that.

Protestant:

So, Jesus’ words here are best interpreted as a simple play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone. And Christ Himself is called the “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:6, 7).

The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which the building was anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built?

It is more likely that the believers, of which Peter is one, are the stones which make up the church, anchored upon the Cornerstone, “and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6).

Catholic:

Similar questions as the preceding.

Protestant:

Even if Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority.

Catholic:

I have given the verse-by-verse in an earlier post on where the Church gets her authority.

Protestant:

Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome.

Abe:

In fact, there is. Holy Scripture contains a passage which supports Peter being in Rome. 1 Peter 5:13 says “The Church which is at Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you, and so does my son Mark. “Babylon” is code for Rome, much as the fish symbol (icthos) was used as sort of shibboleth, a recognition signal. Why would Peter resort to code words? Acts 18:2 describes how the Roman emperor Claudius (A.D. 41- 54) ordered all Jews to leave Rome, necessitating secrecy.

And come to think of it, just GRANTING that Peter was never in Rome, does that automatically and by itself DISPROVE the papacy? Granting for the sake of argument that Peter was never to Rome, couldn’t he still have been the first Pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle there?

Protestant:

Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles.

Catholic:

If by that you mean a verse which says “Jesus said to Peter, ‘Peter you have supremacy over all the other Apostles,’” well, NO.

But then, consider:

(a) Peter’s words are the first recorded in the Upper Room before the Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).(b) Peter is the first to speak (and only one to speak as recorded), the first one to preach the Gospel (Acts 2:14—36).(c) Peter alone interpreted Psalms in the decision to let the position vacated by Judas be filled by a replacement, Matthias. Acts 1:20 “Let his bishopric someone else take,” Peter decided without calling for a vote or even a discussion.(d) It was Peter who, without consulting anyone, made the decision to baptize the Gentile Cornelius and his household on the basis of Peter’s vision at Joppa. Isn’t it presumptuous or even reckless and irresponsible for Peter to make that strategic decision alone if he were not the boss?(e) It was Peter who made the decision at the Council of Jerusalem that grace, not works of law, is required for salvation. The claim by Protestants that it was James, not Peter who made the decision from James’ statement “It is MY judgment” is clutching at straws. First, it is only in Protestant bibles that the statement is rendered “It is MY judgment,” implying authority. The Catholic Vulgate renders it “Propter quod ego iudico. . .” which is rendered in the Catholic RSV Bible as “Therefore my judgment is. . .” which suggests James giving his concurrence, which just happens to coincide with Peter’s.

Let you, readers, decide, which of the two views—the Protestants’ or the Catholics’—is closer to the intention of Luke.

Readers are invited to check out for themselves Acts15:6-29:

“The apostles and elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And AFTER THERE HAD BEEN MUCH DEBATE, Peter rose and said to them, Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.“AND ALL THE ASSEMBLY KEPT SILENCE. . .”

One has to have a good idea of the trouble the division caused – on whether Gentile Christians have to be circumcised to be Christians. One has to understand the vehemence of the Jewish hardliners associated with James, himself a very much-respected apostle being Jesus’ cousin and bishop of Jerusalem, citing as they must have the covenant God made with Abraham (cf Gen 17) and the notion that the Law, once made, is for all times.

Yet when Peter spoke, debate stopped, and the decision was promulgated ON THE SPOT (Acts 15:13-29).

Even the Council of Jerusalem itself is proof that in the early Church is a hierarchy AND A PROCEDURE which everyone, even Paul and Barnabas, followed.

One has to know the “situation on the ground” then. The persecution of Christians following Stephen’s death actually hastened the spread of Christianity to the Gentiles. The Jewish Christians who fled Jerusalem settled in Gentile country, and there preached not only to fellow evacuee Jews but to Gentiles as well. In the process, many Gentiles were converted, raising the grisly prospect among Jewish Christians of a horde of uncircumcised Gentile Christians far outnumbering the Jewish Christians.

So parties of Jewish Christians called “Judaizers” went around Galatia and Antioch, then places where Paul taught, telling the Gentile Christians just the opposite of what Paul taught, which, take note, is what the Council of Jerusalem also decided: grace, not works of Law, is what’s required for salvation.

Paul and Barnabas took this matter up with the Jewish Christians, but they couldn’t resolve the matter among themselves. So guess what they did? Precisely what Mt 18:15-18 says: TAKE IT TO THE CHURCH.

‎(f) Even the Rebuke, which Protestants with barely concealed glee use to discredit the primacy of Peter, actually works to affirm Peter’s primacy. Readers will know more in Gal 2:11, but in Antioch, as earlier narrated, Peter started avoiding sitting at tables with Gentile Christians every time the Judaizers were around. This infuriated Paul, as Peter’s strange behavior belie his pronouncements at the Council of Jerusalem years earlier. And what would the other Christians think: that the decision has now been reversed? Indeed, isn’t Barnabas avoiding sitting at table with the Gentile Christians every time the Judaizers were around a foretaste of the damage Peter’s ambivalence could cause?

So Paul “withstood Peter to his face.”

Now Protestants could barely hide their glee: isn’t this abundantly enough to cast doubt on Peter’s alleged leadership of the Church? If Peter’s boss, how can an underling REBUKE him?Rather than show Peter’s subordinate status, the Rebuke actually shows Peter’s headship.

Had an ordinary person done what Peter did, would it have caused Paul to react the way he did? Most likely not. But Peter? That seemingly innocent move, coming as it does from the head of the Church could signal a strategic shift. That’s why Paul is correct in calling Peter’s attention to his error.

(g) Barnabas is Paul’s bosom body. It was Barnabas who brought Paul to the Apostles, Barnabas who was Paul’s partner in his journeys, Barnabas who picked up the almost lifeless body of Paul who was lynched by the crowd who earlier lionized Paul as a god for making a lame man walk. Yet it was the same Barnabas who, when Peter started avoiding sitting at tables with Gentile Jews every time Judaizers were around, almost by reflex avoided sitting at table with Gentile Christians too.

Now, why EVER would Barnabas do that? Note that Barnabas was a highly respected man in the early Church. Articulate and yet of the most gentle and mild character (he was called “Son of Consolation” for the way he would always sympathize with others, consoling them). If put on a stage together with Peter, people would likely readily choose Barnabas. Why then, did Barnabas by reflex chose to side with Peter, not Paul? The answer is simple: Peter was boss.

Protestant:

The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church.

Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church.

The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).